tv [untitled] April 2, 2013 3:00pm-3:30pm PDT
would be very soon even though that's very soon are we talking about two months? >> yes seems reasonable. >> i'm happy to echo that i hope within the next few months to move forward. i think we all know that the requirement in the law is a hundred percent pass through. as we were doing our research it was actually another supervisor that had agreed to the one hundred percent pass over that there were certain amendments what would be a 50/50 pass through and others on a one hundred percent pass through.
if we were to think about that requirement it would open up all the pass there is no in that area. i think this is important to - or at least to simplify the document process for income levels and situations under which the appeals could happen. i hope in the next few weeks we'll be able to move this forward >> again, i want to thank the mayor and president chiu for working on that in the next few weeks we'll be wrapping this up.
is also on the next item as condition number 89. >> that is specifically a condition requiring points premises include electronic surveillance which is able to look at all entrances and exits. from what i can tell this may be a trend where the police department maybe putting this condition on perhaps all liquor licenses in the city i don't know. but it concerns we have now two before us in different locations where this condition is being included. about two years ago the police department proposed a board requirement that all liquor licenses have a surveillance at
their entrances in in addition that they scan all the ids off those who entered. it was wild criticized and the police department apparently didn't pursue them. i'm concerned the condition provides the electronic recording will be available for all to scrutinize. perhaps this has a track record of bad things happening but i don't believe this is justified. i'm particularly concerned for
gay bars there are people who are not out of the closest who go in to those bars and don't expect to be recorded and that your recorded and the police can request this up to thirty days it's uncomfortable. i don't believe this condition should be included and i'm concerned if this is, in fact, a trend that the department will seek to include this as a matter of course and not as a particular situations i can't support condition 12 in this item and condition 9 in the next item they should be removed >> thank you, very much. good afternoon colleagues. this is an interesting item
before us and i think that supervisor weaning did a good job of this prospective. on the other side of town are liquor stores and not only are those liquor store hubs and magnets for negative behavior i'm supportive not only of those sites but also the i ever tell along the merchant quarters. as i mentioned earlier we've got people that rob people coming in and out of the stores. and also there's drug activity around the so-called liquor stores. i'm also interested in hearing
from supervisor kim about her thoughts about those locations. i don't know if it's a matter of policy where we could on a case by can say basis but it would open us to up arbitrary where the legislation is not board enough but i want it to go on record this is valuable and helpful to my constituents. thank you >> thank you. i that those are great points. i'm supportive of this license partial because there was support from other merchants as
i recall farmer across the street to other merchants when my daughter and i walk there in the daytime it's challenging because of the homeless but it's in the area. i think it is very convincing that some of the conditions as supervisor wiener hieltsd i highlighted it's used as a tool to revitalize the ear. it's a new trendy think the tremendous amount of support from the receipts and other areas i urge support from my colleagues. >> both of these liquor licenses are in district 6. with the case - i was - i do be given my personal knowledge of the area whether we set up what the criteria would be i think that's an interesting discussion i questioned a lot of the
mowed over. the liquor license on howard street i want to continue that item so we can ask the police department why the mandate of the surveillance camera needs to be there. with 34 mason i would support this item as is. thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleagues for their comments i appreciate the comments from supervisor wiener as a gay man
myself i know that the cameras can violate people's privacy. and it certainly something i think we need to have a larger discussion about. i think that my office is working with supervisor wiener when those cameras are appropriate and a type of this application. i think we as a city need to have is a discussion about that the same way we had a discussion about whether or not cameras should be installed at certain streets. in the context of this matter i feel that the issues that i
would expected to have seen or heard were not there to having cameras here. i'm not sure that a policy that takestomy it ad hoc case by case i think that supervisor wiener is right we need to have a policy that's broader. i didn't hear with the matter came to a committee i didn't hear any specific concerns from in establishment about the policy issues if i had heard it i probably would have a different take on that but with the understanding the fact that cameras may not want to have
them in all areas. but i think we need to have a larger discussion. thank you >> this has been a helpful discussion. i think that the surveillance does have its place. i think it can be very useful especially in my district when a business owner puts up to camera for crime that were i'm not opposed to that. and if different bars want to put up a camera if their you encouraged to do so then that's great i don't have a problem with that. what i have a problem with is
mandating that they have to do so. particularly rather than having that larger discussion if we're simply going to insert it as a condition for a liquor licenses that's a problem for me. we've seen over time that the police department may start adding into every single liquor license it's become a policy that is back doord in an individual way because if you do not fight it and it's very hard to fight those conditions it's going to go into there. it can be extremely good for cameras it's just the way it's
being done here >> i want you mentioned there would be a possible hearing. one thing i would encourage you to possibly explore is find out with the muni policy is. they've got cameras on the light rail platforms to find out exactly how they're able to do that. that's a wide city policy that's an example of cameras being around and vigilant. so i'd appreciable if i'd explore that >> i just want to say that generally speaking i agree with many of the comments that were made. supervisor wiener your point is well-taken. i do sit on that committee where we review those things and your
incriminates make me think about this whether or not we need a surveillance. in the case of 34 market street because of the board basis support from the community for this particular license i didn't question it so i've also glutin up in san francisco often times in my growing up and it continues to be a probably an area where your better served having surveillance camera at the particular site than not so i'll be supporting this >> just a point of
clarification with respect to this application the owner agreed to this and i didn't feel that they were forced do this. so i just want to make that point clear for the record. thank you >> regarding 34 mason this is a liquor license that our department worked on and the sponsor spent a lot of time reached out to the neighborhood and our department. my understanding they would have voluntarily put up 0 camera you. however, i will make a mocking motion to put up-tempo 17 >> we hadn't mentioned item 17.
i do ask members of this board to support this item. it's my understanding this was the dialog from the neighborhood and the police department and my office that everyone feels comfortable with this. >> thank you president chiu. >> first of all, i plan to supported the supervisor and her desire and other items. let me suggest this that supervisor wiener is making good points. the boiler point rather than saying that the videotape will
be kept for thirty days we'll want to say that they'll be made available for the investigation of a crime so i think that's appropriate brown but the boarder point is someone who represents a district is that we take those issues on a district by district basis. there are plenty of instancess where we want to have cameras and not have cameras. it's important to ask the san francisco police department where they make those recommendations so we're maximumizing our effort and
with this applicant. so i'd like to make a motion to continue this item for two weeks >> okay. so this motion will be continued. my apologizes april 16th. without objection that will be the case. item 18 >> it's a item reappointing another person their terms ending to the mental health board and roll call vote. >> on item 18.
(calling roll) >> the motion is approved. let's go to the committee report. item 19. >> item 19 was a regular meeting that was held and recommended to the board to delegate the alcohol district and making the findings. and colleagues i'd urge tour support on this ordinance. especially this ordinance alcohol district expired this year and we move this as a
committee report so they'll be a limited report between the two dates and it will have boarder implementations that will continue this alcohol district to the neighborhood. this is important to the district 11. we've had a saturation. we thought it better that we come together and limit the outlets so we can have disburse outlet and minimize the efforts. the renewal effort has been supported by a number of
districts. and the residents association and the action group. also the small business commission was supportive. i urge your support my can we take this item same house, same call? it's passed. madam clerk roll call >> colleagues last year the board of supervisors established the office of early education. and today, i'm introducing legislation to shift the responsibility to review the required childcare feasibility study for the department of early care and education.
i want to thank supervisor al loss for pushing for this shift and i wasn't on the board of supervisors then. and currently the city requires that any city agency or private developer who receives private funds for 50 thousand gross secret or more miss provided a square feet childcare facility plan. it's important that those studies are properly evaluated by the city. secondly i'd like to ask that we close today's meeting in memorial of tonya matis.
she was the wife and mother of michael matis. friend to many long time caterpillar she have succumbed to injuries in last weeks accident chairman of the committee she was hit by a truck. it's unfortunate that we lost not only her life but the life of a high school student recently. and even though i ask for a hearing in district seven months ago it's coming up this thursday and my colleagues - basically my
colleagues of the neighborhood safety committee at that 10:00 a.m. we'll have the first district hearing. we'll hear from the mta fatal collisions as well as the most dangerous intersections in district 7. and we'll hear from the transportation department. i ladder to this flaerg the many district 7 residents that have contacted by office. i'm really hoping that the outcome of this hearing is not just listening to a bunch of reports to consolidate the many
departments into one comprehensive report where we have some mechanism to look at it and evaluate and to prioritize and the rest i support >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues i have a mom relay for yawning and i had the privilege to be at his 1 hundred birthday. it was in a packed home and with hundreds of people passing through throughout the day. it was quite an achievement. he died on good dpri friday, he passed away peacefully. he was deeply loved by his wife